Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Britney was prettier as younger, still nothing outstanding to tell about back home, since there are millions of people in the world looking as pretty if not prettier. Nowadays britney is a different story she looks quite plain, the typical anglo plain face like the daughter of ozzy osbourne (I know they dont look much alike and the latter in much fatter, but I dont know if you get my point).
Look closer. This is what Britney Spears really was, and originally I see nothing "plain" here;
The reason she looks "plain" now is because she is basically destroyed from within.
She was on top of the world and the downfall she experienced in her life was rather steep and painful.
Now Osbourne's daughter looks genuinely bad to begin with, and no hair color, no make up can fix that.
As for the "Anglo plain" look in general - that much is true, but you need to remember as well that the most renowned and good looking women in cinematography were "Anglo" as well - Rita Hayworth, Grace Kelly, Marilyn Monroe, Vivien Leigh to name a few.
You might simply not like this kind of a look - it's what I would consider the "cold type of beauty," but if you are impressed more with Gina Lollobrigida or Sophie Loren for example, don't forget that although on another end of a spectrum there are no "plain looks" of course, but there are disproportionate faces, low foreheads, mono-brows, disfigured chins and darker skin, that age rather quickly.
So thinking purely in terms of physical beauty, it's all give and take situation...
LOL as if all europe was the same, mediterranean europe and balkans (bulgaria, romania, serbia, montenegro ,etc) are clearly mostly very brunette girls and/or dyed blondes. I guess you mean central/northern europe. I guess the thread is not about hair color, but the fact european beauty automatically beats american ones since the latter idealize the busty blond looks, which is far more common to happen naturally (at least central/northern europe) than in the US.
After so many threads concerning the multiculturalism of the U.S. (and her colonist days) how then can it now be that those very same European attributes don't apply in this thread? Now, all of a sudden we Americans are mutts unto ourselves with absolutely NO inherited DNA from our European ancestry, absolutely no genes of natural beauty, especially with all of the mixing of various races and ethnicities I would have to declare (by your reasoning) that we in the U.S. have the most beautiful women in the world (sarcasm alert)!
Yes, Donnie please explain how it is that the idolization of busty blonde looks came to be as I am very sure that not every woman in America wants to be blonde, nor do they intentionally want to drag around two quarts of breast tissue (synthetic or otherwise) on their chests. Try it some time, it can be very tiresome and painful to the shoulders and the back...unless one is a movie store and she doesn't take care of her own children, house, laundry, etc., etc., etc.
the busty blond looks, which is far more common to happen naturally (at least central/northern europe) than in the US...
Hardy har har Donnie, how does that occur so naturally and how is it that it is far more common in Europe than the U.S.? Has Russia been doing additional chemical/nuclear experiments/testing of a clandestine nature?
If I perceive a woman to be smarter and more affluent than myself, it would neither offend me nor make me feel threatened; rather, it would lead me to question what the nature of any potential relationship with her would be (i.e. might she believe that her life's successes relative to mine put her in a position of dominance in the relationship? Has she, perhaps, been completely defeminized in the professional/educational worlds that often promote androgynous dynamics between genders?).
It has nothing to do with a lack of confidence on my part--it's about preference, compatibility, and, I believe, nature.
Actually... it is a lack of confidence on your part. Since as I've already mentioned that Europeans are in the league of their own, my observation was such, that they are often more confident than Americans when it's coming to smart and affluent women. They perceive it as a challenge that they are not afraid of, and a lot of European women in professional/educational worlds are not all that androgynous. Some are, but some are definitely not; this is more American phenomenon than European, so in this case you are projecting things American onto Europeans.
You are right however when it comes to preference and compatibility - not every man is compatible with challenging women, as much as not every man finds himself attracted to a woman whose interests are concentrated in traditionally feminine area - the babies, the kitchen, the latest fashion in clothing.
Quote:
Let's be honest here: when a woman seeks a man of higher income and/or social status than her, we can more or less accept that she's seeking a partner who can provide security for her (or take care of her, in other words), which is, whether you acknowledge it or not, a naturally feminine behavior, not a naturally masculine behavior. That's the point I was trying to make.
And again I'm afraid you are making a wrong assumption, or rather half-right one...
Because, if you read this particular thread,
( which is interestingly enough concerns European men as well,) you'll see right away that there is no such thing as one single type of man when it comes to relations with woman; the OP ( who is an American like yourself by the way) observes the difference between Americans and Europeans. This is what he is saying; "I noticed this during my time spent in Central America where the men were even more macho than American men. It appears to be partially a cultural aspect. Down there they are expected to be real men, macho men and exert their dominance. However, in more gentler parts of Europe, especially northern Europe, people have told me that the men are certainly even less macho than the Americans. I believe this to be true especially since, for example, Swedish men are world famous for devoting more time to paternal responsibilities."
So if we are talking about two different types of man, we probably have to speak about two different types of women as well, yet you seems to be talking only about one, the most familiar to you, the type that I must admit is quite reflective of American women - at least a lot of them.
See even in Russia, in culture that breeds ultra-feminine women and macho men, I could clearly distinguish two types of women; the one you describe more or less - the one that has tendency to rely on men, to seek their protection, the women who can't imagine their life without men, and the second type; strong - headed, independent, the women who have tendency to rely on themselves and let men win them over, since they consider their sexual drive ( and appeal) as a major bait. The first type has been traditionally regarded as the most desirable one for marriage, while the second type usually doesn't fair well, and is mostly used for girl-friend status/extra-marital affairs. ( May be it's reminiscent of America up to the...50\60ies - I dunno exactly.)
My guess is, that there are a lot of variations between these two radically different types of women, but no matter how many qualities from both types one woman can share, deep down every woman still belongs to only one of them.
Quote:
A man who wants his female partner to be of superior intellect, income and social status (remember, I'm saying superior, not equal) is not a "weakling" per se, but he should perhaps expect to be viewed as somewhat emasculated in the context of traditional views of gender nature. Western feminists despise theories that reinforce notions of natural gender differences, and that, in my view, is a problem.
And again I think you are wrong when you are talking about Europeans. I don't believe they are specifically looking for women with SUPERIOR intellect ( or income or social status,) but if they happen to come across them and if they happen to be interested in them, as I've already said they are not afraid of challenge. Not ALL Europeans of course, but it's definitely part of their culture.
Quote:
And of course I can learn from a woman, but that's provided, of course, that she doesn't feel the need to bust my b*lls with "girl power!" chauvinism.
I suspect that this "girl power" comes precisely from the first type of women - it's all so Freudian, lol.
Quote:
The last point I should make is that men and women needn't trivialize their differences in order to feel a mutual sense of equality and respect. Suppressing our nature as men and women is only going to build tension and frustration, not healthy relationships (and we in the West, first and foremost, need to come to terms with that).
The problem with your statement ( as good as it sounds) is that the "nature of men" is not as unanimous as the "nature of woman." It looks like we are dealing with two ( no, make it four) different archetypes, and in each case the rules are quite different.
"I noticed this during my time spent in Central America where the men were even more macho than American men. It appears to be partially a cultural aspect. Down there they are expected to be real men, macho men and exert their dominance. However, in more gentler parts of Europe, especially northern Europe, people have told me that the men are certainly even less macho than the Americans. I believe this to be true especially since, for example, Swedish men are world famous for devoting more time to paternal responsibilities."
This is so interesting. I've observed the opposite; that a lot of Central American men have a more gentle nature. "Macho" isn't popular there, in fact, it's regarded as a foreign influence.
This is so interesting. I've observed the opposite; that a lot of Central American men have a more gentle nature. "Macho" isn't popular there, in fact, it's regarded as a foreign influence.
Maybe it depends on what circles one travels in.
In a strange way I probably understand what you are saying, although I haven't seen too many Central Americans. "Macho" culture is really more vivid and prominent in Latin Americans comparably to Central Americans, ( don't know exactly how much Catholic culture plays role here,) but their gentleness is of a different nature. They seem to be more in touch with their spiritual side whatever it is, with nature itself ( just listen to their pan flute music and all,) so to them macho behavior is nothing aggressive or something to put up for a show - it's a very quite, matter-of-fact part of their lives, something they don't dwell on too much or probably even question...It's just there.
Me being Slovenian, I feel like we dont have a special look. I mean when you look at a Russian woman or Italian woman, you can tell they are from there, but for some reason I dont think Slovenian woman have a specific look.
I'm a straight female so me responding is weird but since fashion is a hobby of mine I notice looks among women. I don't think European girls are generally better looking than American girls. It's probably the fact that they come across more exotic to American men, which can turn them on. They do tend to be more well-dressed often than American girls, being well-dressed does makes you look nicer, so that could make them more attractive superficially.
Me being Slovenian, I feel like we dont have a special look. I mean when you look at a Russian woman or Italian woman, you can tell they are from there, but for some reason I dont think Slovenian woman have a specific look.
Because countries like slovenia, hungary, etc being so central in europe makes them having a wide range on phenotypes. But when you go a bit down to serbia you already have a very common type of people, the typical balkanian type. Small countries located just in the center of europe (not necessarely proper central european culturally)are probably the most diverse in europe, in terms of diversity on a single city. France is for example diverse in terms of look, but its also because its a big country for european standards, and if you go to an small/mid cities in their extremes like dunkerque you will notice there isnt that much diversity in the place itself (talking about natives only), so if you go to deep south like toulon, some big countries are diverse because they have many types of people, and people in different localities look different and have distinctive culture, which doesnt mean you go to an specific place and you will see a big diversity with the exception of very large cities like paris,lyon,etc which attract french from all over france, hence they become diverse because of internal migration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh please..."as if all of America was the same"
(sarcasm alert)! 
Some are, but some are definitely not; this is more American phenomenon than European, so in this case you are projecting things American onto Europeans.
